Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission ran a campaign last autumn at a cost of about £100,000, which was more than twice as much as what was spent in advance of the previous general election. The problem, of course, is identifying the market. The number of people is extremely large, but the number registered is extremely small, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The most recent campaign to reach British citizens living abroad included online advertising, public relations activity, mailing to British people living overseas and the distribution of information via British embassies and high commissions.
	The Electoral Commission is also proposing to convene a seminar later this year with political parties to discuss ways of improving registration levels among overseas residents. How good it would be if we could learn something from the American elections. I understand that it is estimated that many thousands of American citizens living in London are exercising their right to vote. I have been advised to be cautious about quoting those numbers, but it would be nice to think that lessons could be learned from that campaign.

Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. There are three parties involved. The first is the Electoral Commission, which takes the view that it would not be proportionate for it to devote very large amounts of resources to overseas voters, because of the difficulties of reaching them. The second is the electoral registration officers and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making a valid point about them. I will discuss with the Electoral Commission what further can be done to fulfil their duties in that regard. The third party is the political parties. The Electoral Commission takes the view that it is primarily the responsibility of the political parties to seek to encourage overseas citizens to register and vote in UK elections.

Tony Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that many of my constituents would regard spending resources that could be better used to increase registration among those who live in the United Kingdom as a gross waste of money? I have nothing against those who live abroad, but they often pay no taxes and break the connection. I would far sooner encourage UK residents to vote rather than those living overseas.

Vera Baird: The Crown Prosecution Service has not done a discrete assessment of the effectiveness of the system for presenting objections to bail. Police concerns about granting bail to accused are reviewed objectively by prosecutors against the Bail Act criteria. Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate periodically reviews CPS systems generally and has not identified any inherent weaknesses in performance.

Vera Baird: As ever, my right hon. Friend has made a sensible suggestion. I meet the other two Justice Ministers frequently, as does my noble Friend the Attorney-General. As I have said, the Lord Chancellor is in the lead on the issue, and I have no doubt that he will consult both the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary on any proposals that he concludes, having consulted us, are necessary following the changes that have taken place. However, as I have also said, the system is as it is.

Vera Baird: I have never seen any of them either gaga or naked. It seems that all the assertions have been that we do not need that change now, but it equally seems that everyone has agreed that it is very possible that an extension beyond 28 days will be needed before very long. The proposal is to legislate to provide an opportunity to extend the period if necessary.
	I want to make very clear that there appears to be agreement across parties, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday. The issue is how this is done. In my view, the important thing is to have it under judicial control. This proposal would do that: it would put detention not into the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service or the police, but under judicial control, which is where it properly should be.

Mark Harper: The Minister for equalities will know that in the process of reducing discrimination against women it is important that the Government Equalities Office takes a leading role. Can she tell the House when she will be able to appoint a permanent secretary?

Harriet Harman: This issue has been raised previously by Members not only in respect of judicial appointments, but public appointments in general. As I have told the House before, we all think it is unacceptable that there has been no increase in women's appointments to public office in the past 10 years. The independence of the Judicial Appointments Commission, and its target for increasing the number of women at the top level of the judiciary, has yet to bear fruit. I expect to meet soon the heads of the JAC and the Appointments Commission to see what further can be done.

Lynda Waltho: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Despite all the progress, there are still only 97 Labour, 17 Conservative and 9 Liberal Democrat women MPs, and the Fawcett Society estimates that it will take at least 200 years to get anywhere close to having 50:50 representation. All-women shortlists have helped in our case, but those provisions contains a sunset clause and are due to end. What more can we do to ensure that we get closer to having 50:50 representation in my lifetime, rather than in the lifetime of my great granddaughters?

Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy and apologise for my slowness. I congratulate Manchester City council on its work in that respect, which has helped many more women to go into work. The Government are providing substantial help, totalling £18.5 million a day, for working families through the working tax credit. We provide £3 million a day to help working families with 80 per cent. of their child care costs. A lot is being done and we hope to do a lot more. I hope that the relevant figures will be made available to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members so that they can ensure that their constituents get the child care they need and deserve.

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman criticises the proposed review, but we have to make decisions on important matters, such as the business of the House and issues that affect the lives of people outside it. To do that, we need the facts: we have to consult people and listen to what they say, and that means that we have to have a review. Doing things on the back of an envelope for the sake of a cheap headline is something that I shall leave the Opposition.

Shailesh Vara: In her ministerial statement on topical debates, the Leader of the House says that she will publish a quarterly list of the subjects that have been proposed, but the Modernisation Committee has recommended that that list should be published every fortnight. Why has the right hon. and learned Lady gone for the longer option? In addition, will she also publish the names of the people proposing the subjects? I am sure that it would be of considerable interest to the House to know whether a subject had been proposed by a Back Bencher with a genuine interest in it—or by, say, the Government Chief Whip, with an eye to his own media agenda.

Helen Goodman: The Leader of the House has an interest in a range of issues under the governance of Britain programme, with a particular responsibility in the proposals relating to the draft legislative programme, the dissolution and recall of Parliament, departmental debate days and regional accountability in the House. Those are all being considered in inquiries by the Modernisation Committee, chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, to which public contributions have been invited.

James McGovern: May we have a debate on the standards and costings of election promises? Prior to the Scottish elections last May, the people were presented with an uncosted fantasy manifesto, which has led to an unprecedented number of about turns and broken promises. Does the Leader of the House agree that treating our electorate with such contempt only furthers public mistrust of politics, politicians and the political process?

John Spellar: May I thank the Leader of the House for selecting Holocaust memorial day as a subject for topical debate last week? I am sure that she will have been impressed by the attendance and quality of contributions in that debate. Will she ascertain through the usual channels whether a debate on this important topic could become an scheduled annual event? That would be widely appreciated in the House and elsewhere.

Lee Scott: Will the Leader of the House please consider a debate on consultancies awarding contracts in the national health service, in the light of the fact that two previous chief executives from NHS trusts, including mine—Barking, Havering and Redbridge—who received large pay-offs, leaving their trusts with a deficit of £39.9 million, have now set up a business to advise the NHS on how to run hospitals? Surely that should be called, "Not Fit for the Future".

Harriet Harman: When the Select Committee reports, it will be topical to discuss the post office closure programme, which might be a good subject for a topical debate. During that debate my hon. Friend will have a further opportunity to raise his constituents' concerns about the Walnut street and Francis street post offices.

Harriet Harman: What the hon. Gentleman has done is transpose percentage increase figures from different years. We want to be sure that we can negotiate three-year pay deals, so that in the year April 2007 to April 2008, all pay agreements had to be kept to 1.9 per cent. As well as properly rewarding important public sector workers, we are going to make absolutely sure that inflation and interest rates are kept low.

Harriet Harman: I think we are all concerned that people are entitled to their human rights wherever they are, and that the British Government stands up for human rights internationally and, particularly, looks after British citizens whose rights are being breached by foreign Governments. As I mentioned earlier, this is a matter for our consular services, and I will draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I am glad that it, at least, was not lost in the post. I also thank Sir Ronnie for his invaluable contribution to the debate on police reform.
	I agree with Sir Ronnie's assessment of the state of policing in Britain today. The question is, does the Home Secretary? Does she recognise, and does she accept, Sir Ronnie's candid assessment of 10 years of failed policy? In Sir Ronnie's own words, that policy has left the police subject to "perverse incentives", "a slave to doctrine", and "straitjacketed by process". Police spend a fifth if not more of their time on bureaucracy, and wade through a "raft" of targets—and that is just what Sir Ronnie was allowed to say.
	The original draft, widely reported, included material that has been taken out, and which we have not been allowed to hear today. For example, why does the Home Secretary dispute Sir Ronnie's estimate that our police forces face half a million hours of audit inspection every year? On what basis did she delete references to the devastating effect of—again, these are Sir Ronnie's own words—"top down management", the "proliferation" of process and "declining public confidence", and Sir Ronnie's finding that the over-centralised Government of which she is a member is "part of the problem"? On pages 64 and 65, the original report refers to
	"The focus on national priorities... and consequent decline in public confidence and satisfaction with policing".
	The final report states:
	"'Public satisfaction in the police... has shown gains"
	since the 1990s. That is not quite the same, and I wonder whether the Home Secretary can explain the change.
	We agree with many of the recommendations in the Flanagan report, even the Home Office-edited version. It demonstrates clearly that Labour's approach—over-centralised micro-management of the police—has failed. We have proposed an alternative approach, involving a locally controlled police force with officers on the street, free of unnecessary red tape and free to do the job of protecting the public.
	Sir Ronnie has adopted a number of our ideas, including scrapping stop and account—to which the Home Secretary referred—and introducing virtual courts. Those and other common-sense measures will receive our support. But there again, we have been calling for a fundamental overhaul of police bureaucracy for years, and we have had more police reviews from the Government than we have had Home Secretaries.
	Let us look at the specifics. The Home Secretary has expressed support for increased civilianisation of police functions. We introduced civilianisation 15 years ago, and we made some sensitive and positive proposals a year ago. Will the Home Secretary tell us her response to the president of the Police Superintendents Association, who said this morning that there was a limit to the scope for civilianisation in a large number of forces?
	If the Home Secretary wants to make a real difference, she should simply adopt the whole Conservative agenda. She should scrap forms, starting with the stop-and- account form but including the stop-and-search form. She should slash targets—rather than just fiddling with them—and the army of auditors that goes with them. She should strengthen police powers of stop and search to respond effectively to incidents or threats of knife, gun and drug crimes, and she should reverse the health and safety rules that wrap officers in cotton wool and put the public at risk.
	The Home Secretary can go further. Will she adopt our proposals to put police back on the beat, revise the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 so that the police do not spend up to seven and a half hours filling in forms before they can stake out a known burglar's house, and restore charging discretion so that they spend less time waiting for the Crown Prosecution Service to make up its mind? Will she end 10 years of corrosive centralisation, and accept our long-standing call for locally elected police commissioners?
	The Flanagan report is long and comprehensive, but it demonstrates two key facts: that the failure of 10 years of Labour's centralised micro-management has demoralised the police and debilitated public confidence, and that it is the Conservatives who understand what it will take to get police back on our streets, accountable to the communities that they serve.
	After five—five!—studies of police bureaucratisation and 150 recommendations before this report, none of which have been implemented, will the Home Secretary please tell us when the Government will stop just talking about stronger law and order? When will they get a grip and deliver it?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the importance of our investment in police officers and the work that is being done locally. I understand the particular circumstances that caused concern in her constituency. Next year, we will ensure that Cheshire police force receives a 2.5 per cent. uplift in the central police grant, including a 2.7 per cent uplift in the part of the grant that relates to neighbourhood policing. It is for local chief constable to make decisions about the issues she mentions, but I believe that the Government have ensured that the resources are available to put the policing personnel in place to tackle crime and to ensure that her constituents feel safe.

Jacqui Smith: If my hon. Friend is arguing, as I think he might be, for us to look at the performance-management regime and ensure that it is proportionate in representing success but strong in challenging underperformance where it exists, he makes an important point. That will be an important element of the consideration that we will put into the policing Green Paper.

Jacqui Smith: Specials do an excellent job, their numbers are increasing and we should congratulate them on their work. However, to congratulate them while denigrating the crucial work that PCSOs do in communities across this country day in, day out short-changes not only our communities but PCSOs and specials. It is about time that we recognised, as I believe people within policing do, that policing is about a range of contributions being made by the specials, PCSOs, police officers and police staff. To run down one particular section in order to make a point demeans the argument.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have rightly set strong efficiency targets for the police service, on which it has delivered well. The report is about ensuring that we can shift the resource that is already in policing so that, as Sir Ronnie appropriately puts it, we have
	"the right people in the right places at the right times, doing the right things."
	That is what this report and our action is about.

Philip Davies: In my time on the parliamentary police scheme, I detected a debilitating culture in the police, whereby it seemed better not to make a bad decision than proactively to make a good decision. Police officers of all ranks seemed afraid of making decisions lest something went wrong and they were left hanging out to dry. Will the Home Secretary ensure that officers are given proper support when things go wrong through genuine mistakes and are not left in the situation that I have outlined? Will she ensure they are given more discretion to size-up situations for themselves? They should not process people through the custody desks on cases that they know are not going anywhere just because they do not feel that they have discretion to size-up the situation for themselves. That happens at the moment.

John Baron: May I return the Home Secretary to a question posed by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, which she never answered? When it came to Sir Ronnie's original draft of his review, why did she remove the reference to 500,000 hours spent on audit work?

Chris Bryant: Is it not a mistake to go down the line of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and to praise one part of the police team rather than the whole police team? It is only when we have the civilian staff as well as the constables, the specials and the PCSOs working together that we can get what constituents want, which is a regular presence on the street, swift answering of the telephone, somebody there when there is an emergency and every claim taken seriously. It is not also important that we boost the specials? Would it not be better to have more local training of specials so that we could encourage more people to come into the force? Perhaps we could consider a small honorarium of £500 a year for specials.

Greg Mulholland: That is an interesting question, but the overall approach to staffing in all sorts of areas simply does not add up. I mentioned maternity services: we all know that there has been a failure to recruit enough midwives to provide the one-to-one care that the Government have promised. Birth rates are rising, many midwives have retired, and the problem can only get worse. If it continues, the chronic shortage of midwives could also force the closure of small childbirth centres across the country—just when the Government, quite rightly, are pushing forward with trying to give women real choice about where and how they have their babies.
	I turn now to the increasingly damaging row between the Government and GPs, in particular over extended hours. The Government are trying to paint that row as one between them and the unrepresentative British Medical Association, not doctors. The Government are trying to suggest that the BMA is not willing to offer more extended opening hours, but all the doctors to whom I have spoken say that they support some form of appropriate extended hours. As a result, they feel that they are being ignored and dictated to.
	Everyone agrees that extended hours are a good thing and, crucially, doctors agree with that too. The doctors in my constituency—indeed, all the GPs and their representatives to whom I have spoken—have made it clear that they would be more than happy to offer extended opening hours to their patients. However, they also have a very good idea of their own practice and their patients' lifestyles and needs, so they have different suggestions as to how extended opening hours could be offered to fit both their practices and, crucially, their patients' demands.

Greg Mulholland: I support the review of the current situation, but the Government have been in power for almost 11 years, and it seems a bit late for a complete overhaul to the way in which we run our NHS.
	The Government should stop trying to look tough all the time, stop alienating staff and stop alarming patients. They should come up with workable solutions that meet local health care needs. For now, the skirmishes carry on. They are draining and distracting for all sides, and are not conducive to the provision of health care, which clearly requires Government, local health care organisations and the professionals to work together. The Government are ignoring the cause of our nurses, have lost the trust of our junior doctors, and are now at war with GPs. They are trying to control instead of guide, dictate instead of empower, and micro-manage instead of devolve. That is not the way for the NHS to achieve its potential, and it is time for a change of approach. It is time, at last, for the Government to listen.

Richard Spring: On behalf of everybody present, and indeed on your behalf, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the behalf of every Member, may I pay tribute to the wonderful work done by doctors, consultants and nurses, and the ancillary workers who are often the unsung heroes of the NHS? As the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) says, there are tensions within the NHS. It is therefore simply beyond belief that not one Labour Member of Parliament intends to speak in this debate on NHS staffing. I hope that when the Minister makes her final comments, she will apologise for that, as it sends out a curious message to all those in the NHS who are under considerable stress.
	In recent years, the NHS has faced a number of problems, not least in Suffolk. The county has been hit by cash crises, service cuts, closures and redundancies. Our hospitals are continually on black alert. In the past 10 years, the number of available beds has been cut from 1,501 in 1996-07 to 1,194 in 2006-07. What is really sad is that community nurses and doctors have told me that the local hospital, the West Suffolk hospital, is being forced to discharge patients prematurely. Of course, the hospital is doing everything in its power to mitigate those unfortunate circumstances, but the situation has arisen because of very tight finances. The problem is that there are insufficient numbers of intermediate care beds, ever-increasing pressures on staff, and a top-down, centralised, target-driven culture that continues to drive front-line clinicians in our NHS to despair. That is well known.

Richard Spring: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are difficulties. Naturally, the problem of the fact that it is possible to obtain a certain form of treatment in one part of the country but not another has to be resolved, but I am not really talking about that. I am talking about a culture that has caused people to be pushed out of beds prematurely—that is the view of community nurses and doctors—simply because of the pressures of centralised targets and control. That is quite different from the dilemma that he rightly mentions. There is a great sense of despair among many of those who work in the NHS. The result is that our GPs are forced to pick up the pieces, which is difficult. I was talking to a GP in my constituency about that only yesterday.
	Having targets for capacity in our hospitals raises the risk of superbugs such as clostridium difficile and MRSA. There have already been worrying increases in the number of superbug cases in some of the hospitals in the eastern region. Both West Suffolk and Ipswich hospitals have experienced increases in C. diff infections among patients over 65; in contrast, nationally there is improvement to the problem. Vomiting and diarrhoea bugs are commonplace. It is truly horrific that some elderly constituents of mine are now scared to go into hospital because of those bugs.
	I reiterate that our doctors, nurses and ancillary workers do a wonderful job, but they are struggling to cope. Job cuts have simply not helped the situation. I acknowledge that, as the Minister said, since 1997 the number of staff employed in the NHS has grown, but since September 2005, some 38,000 jobs have been cut from the NHS. Last year, almost 7,000 nursing jobs were lost. The total number of qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff employed by West Suffolk Hospital NHS Trust has decreased by 9 per cent. since 2004. The number of professionally qualified clinical staff has decreased by 8 per cent. since 2003.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Minister knows what I am about to ask my hon. Friend. There is a shortage of midwives in the national health service—a fact that is widely publicised by the Royal College of Midwives itself. There is also a shortage of student midwives. If the Government are to meet the guarantees in the midwifery matters strategy, the midwifery profession in the health service must be provided with more money, so that it can ensure safety in birth and the delivery of post-natal work.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that one of the problems is not the number of doctors trained but the number of vacancies available? In some cases, up to 20 qualified doctors apply for one post; on average three times as many people apply as there are posts.

Richard Spring: My hon. Friend has always made an enormous contribution in the House on health matters, in which he takes a close interest. His question is about what is commonly described as the poor relation of the health services. I do not have specific statistics about the problem, but I am sure that he agrees that one of the tragedies in how mental health has been handled, from a financial and back-up point of view, is that many individuals who are tragically caught up in the vortex of mental ill health land up in the criminal justice system, where they remain for good. Nothing is more tragic in personal terms; it is also very destructive for society as a whole.
	I welcome the 5.5 per cent. increase that all PCTs are receiving in 2008-09, but it does not sufficiently address the problem that I have outlined. I have met officials at the Department of Health on several occasions to discuss the funding given to Suffolk, and have spent a great deal of time examining the funding formula that distributes funding to PCTs. The strategic health authority has accepted that we get a particularly raw deal. Rural areas such as Suffolk—many of my hon. Friends will be in exactly the same position—have been adversely impacted by a funding formula that discriminates against them.
	I raised the issue at a meeting with a former Secretary of State for Health, and she agreed that if the NHS structures in Suffolk and elsewhere were in financial balance by last spring, she would re-examine the problem of rurality as part of the NHS funding formula. I hope that the reason why the advisory committee on resource allocation has requested more time to finalise its review of the resource allocation formula is that it is seriously examining the rurality factor. I eagerly await the report, which we hope will finally be published this summer. I hope that the revenue allocation in my area will be considerably greater. The impact of the cuts on staffing is just one manifestation of the negative effect that the skewed funding formula has had in Suffolk and other more rural parts of the country.
	At the level at which most people have contact with the NHS, I fear that we are seeing a similar discriminatory effect. Haverhill, which is the largest town in my constituency, is being affected by the operation of the Carr-Hill formula, especially through its effect on the weighted list size of each practice. That has caused considerable distress to my constituents. I touched on the national funding formula and the fact that it has thrown up various anomalies over the years. Now we have an anomalous situation closer to home.
	For most people, contact with the NHS is most frequently made through their local GP surgery. A general practitioner is invariably the first port of call for people seeking help and GPs are hugely trusted in the local community. Yet the application of the centrally determined Carr-Hill formula has resulted in the town in my constituency which is the largest and most rapidly expanding in the whole county experiencing cuts of £280,000 for the local GP practices. That has meant that those practices will have to cut back, possibly remove staff, and make additional savings.
	People read the huge headline rates of supposed increases in spending in the NHS and they hear about the increased commitment by the Government, but they cannot marry that up with the fact that they see cuts in the local hospitals, beds being removed, staff given the sack, and the GPs in the biggest town in my constituency up in arms because they are faced with substantial cuts—about £280,000. The community has come together in an unprecedented way. Petitions of more than 10,000 people have been delivered to No. 10 Downing street and to the House.
	People cherish the NHS and want it to work. They cannot understand why such situations continuously arise. Having to deal with the consequences is hugely undermining for those who so loyally work in the NHS. I read Lord Darzi's proposals with great interest. In the report published last autumn, he proposed that each PCT should have a new GP-led health centre. I am delighted that an initiative is under way in Suffolk that may bring one of those new walk-in centres that is open from 8 am to 8 pm to Haverhill in my constituency.
	However, that does not offset the fact that one of the consequences of the budget cut in Haverhill, with its impact on staffing, is that some of the satellite surgeries that the GPs were able to operate in the villages surrounding the town will be cut, notably in the village of Kedington. People have got used to having a satellite surgery and they value it because public transport is limited. Because of staff pressures resulting from the cuts, the surgery there will be cut again. That undermines people's confidence in the NHS. They keep asking where all the money has gone. Such is the outrage in the village, where the GPs are held in high regard, that we are holding a public meeting. I will do everything in my power to encourage the survival of the GP surgeries, because they are held in great esteem.
	During the past 10 years the whole of the NHS has suffered badly, but in Suffolk it has been hit particularly hard. As the Minister said, the NHS marks its 60th anniversary this July. It was based on the founding principle of providing health care for all citizens and it is very much cherished, yet if the Minister has listened to what I said—I have tried to cite the statistics as accurately as possible—she will accept that people question whether that principle is still upheld. They do not understand what is happening.
	Our hospitals are at bursting point. There is no question but that staff morale in the NHS is very low, we do not have enough beds, patients are being discharged too early—not for clinical reasons, but because of the target-driven culture—and the obsessive bureaucracy is impacting on the lives of our doctors and nurses. When patients go into hospital, there is the danger, as a consequence of superbugs, that they will leave in worse health than when they were admitted. There is the prospect that some of my constituents will be without a local GP surgery. As the elderly population grows, the situation will become worse.
	In conclusion, yes, there has been an increase in staffing overall, although recently that has not been the pattern locally. Yes, more money has gone into the NHS and technology has improved. But my constituents share the concerns of doctors, nurses, community nurses and ancillary workers about what is going on in the NHS. Despite all the good intentions that may exist, morale is probably at its lowest point in the history of the NHS. That is a terrible indictment of what the Government have done.

Anne Milton: I accept that the report from which I was quoting was produced by a Committee with a dominance of Labour Back Benchers, and was chaired by a Labour Member. I am simply quoting a report that has come from the Minister's own party's Back Benches.
	The Audit Commission is reviewing the SHA's work force planning but that is to be kept a secret. There is fury in the press about that. Reference has been made to NHS managers. It is not that we do not need managers; one of my hon. Friends made the very good point that the NHS is enormous and needs management. However, there has been a 73 per cent. increase in the number of managers since 1996 and only a 31 per cent. increase in clinical staff.

Anne Milton: I shall not give way because I am short of time and the clock is not stopping.
	Some £1.8 billion has been spent on agency staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) has a particular interest in midwives; the Royal College of Midwives is extremely concerned about the rising birth rate. It is up by 16 per cent. in London; there are 72,000 more babies. The number of deliveries per midwife has gone up. The NHS maternity services budget is shrinking, as is the NHS midwifery work force. We need more student midwives. There have been fewer training places in the years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. Although there has been a significant increase in the number of nurses, there are now cuts in the number of specialist nurses and posts are being frozen. Some 180,000 nurses are due to retire in the next 10 years, and more than half rated their morale as very poor or considerably poor in a recent survey.
	The Department of Health itself has predicted a shortfall of 14,000 nurses by 2010. Independent research shows that the mortality in hospitals with the lowest registered-nurse-to-patient ratio is 12 per cent. The number of nurses per patient is literally crucial to the survival of patients. I could go on about physiotherapists. More than 2,000 physiotherapy students graduated in 2007, but only 25 per cent. have a permanent job. Some 49 per cent. have not been able to find one.
	We cannot walk down the street without a cardiologist pulling us away and inserting a stent. Yet the 66,000 people newly diagnosed with heart failure and the 345,000 people newly diagnosed with angina are not getting the cardiac rehab for which they are desperate.

Ann Keen: I have very little time left, so the hon. Lady might want to see me at some later time.
	Our stroke strategy and our cancer plan have been welcomed throughout the voluntary sector—and most importantly of all, by patients themselves. Patients' satisfaction with the NHS is second to none. The work force in our NHS is also second to none. We need to do more to improve it, so we need to work together in the House. I would like to see a consensus on the point that the NHS as it stands today provides the best health care in the world. That is true only because of NHS staff. Let us all work together not to praise them only today but always. That is different from the 1980s and 90s, when I experienced marches and collection buckets for NHS equipment. No one is doing that today because we have a Labour Government looking after the NHS.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of NHS staffing.

Theresa May: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, and not just about the motion in the name of the Leader of the House and the amendments that I tabled. I start by welcoming the fact that the Government have taken the initiative to improve the way in which the House scrutinises European legislation. The system has needed reform for some time; indeed, the need for reform was pointed out three years ago by the Modernisation Committee, and successive Leaders of the House have been encouraged to act on its report. I congratulate the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House on grasping the nettle. I also thank the Deputy Leader of the House for her courtesy in consulting me on the issue, for talking to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara)—the shadow Deputy Leader of the House—and me about the issues, and for her willingness to try to find a resolution on the issues that I have raised.
	I also congratulate the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), because it was the pressure that he put on the Government at the end of last year that led to the Government undertaking the exercise, to work being done, and to the motions before us today. I welcome the fact that the Government are prepared to act on the issue and have made proposals that would lead to a better procedure, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said, but I am deeply disappointed by the result of the exercise. I do not believe that the proposal goes far enough. It is a bit of a damp squib, and wider reform is needed if we are to resolve the problem of the democratic deficit in our consideration of European Union legislation.
	As the Deputy Leader of the House knows, I have made a number of proposals on how that democratic deficit can be overcome, and I will refer to some of them. First, I should like to comment on the context of the debate—the House's scrutiny of European legislation. Most people's knowledge of what happens in Westminster is probably confined to a 30-second snippet of Prime Minister's questions each week. Some will be vaguely aware of the daily work that Select Committees and Public Bill Committees do—discussing key issues, dissecting legislation and so forth—but few will realise the true extent of that work. If that is most people's view of Parliament's work on domestic legislation, let us just think how few people have any understanding at all of what happens to European legislation, beyond feeling that there is too much of it and that we should not be ruled by Brussels.
	However, between 50 and 70 per cent. of UK laws originate in the European Union. The EU produces four pieces of secondary legislation a week, and every year more than 1,000 European documents are deposited in Parliament. Only a handful of them receive full debate in the House. Dealing with EU legislation is clearly an enormous part of the House's work, yet our system of scrutiny for that legislation is woefully inadequate. I must make it clear that that is nothing to do with the members of the European Scrutiny Committee, who diligently carry out their role as best they can within the current system. However, the Committee lacks the teeth that it needs properly to hold the Government to account. Too often, Parliament is ignored and its decisions are overridden.
	The only formal role that national Parliaments have in the European legislation process is in the implementation of European directives, regulations, legislation and decisions. Parliaments' only influence, therefore, is based on their right to hold to account members of their national Governments, so the purpose of our system of scrutiny is to ensure that our Parliament has the opportunity to influence and hold to account UK Ministers for their decisions in the Council of Ministers. It is in that context that I am deeply disappointed in the proposals tabled by the Leader of the House, because that demographic deficit—that gap in our system—is not redressed by the motion.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for further clarification of his point. The comments that I shall go on to make may edge towards the situation that he describes, but I suspect hat they will not go quite so far.

David Heathcoat-Amory: It is disappointing that the Deputy Leader of the House should try and excuse errant Departments, rather than stand up for the rights of the House, which is her job.
	May I remind my right hon. Friend of another abuse? Ministers are persistently reaching what they call a general approach in the Council of Ministers to get around the scrutiny reserve. They are not allowed to reach agreement while the matter in question is still under scrutiny, but they claim that a general approach exempts them from that. That has been explicitly censured in another place by the equivalent Committee, which said that it did not accept the Government's view that agreement to a general approach does not constitute a breach of the scrutiny reserve resolution. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that, and will she recommend a change to our procedures to prevent such things from happening in future?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and valid point.
	As I said, the scrutiny reserve should be put on a statutory basis so that Ministers are required to come to the Committee before negotiations at the European Council and cannot override it. My proposal is based on the Danish model. I recognise that there are some rigidities in that model and that it would be necessary to give the Committee a degree of flexibility so that Ministers could set out a negotiating position before they went to the Council. I accept that it makes sense for those particular discussions to be held in private so that the Government do not give the UK's negotiating position away. The minutes could be made public after the negotiations, however.
	My proposal would work along similar lines as the Danish model, although, as I said, the Committee would need to recognise the occasions on which Ministers needed to be given a degree of flexibility. The system would also need to be backed by clear sanctions so that if the Minister broke the reserve—if he or she came to an agreement with the Committee and went on to negotiate a different position—there could be some kind of formal censure. The crucial thing is to put Parliament back in the driving seat and make sure that we help to reduce the democratic deficit by ensuring that Ministers are responsible and accountable in Parliament for the decisions that they take.

Michael Connarty: I do not know whether I can be brief, but I shall try not to keep the House too long.
	I welcome the progress that has been made on this issue since it was taken over by the Deputy Leader of the House. I commend her. She has laboured long in the vineyard, and I know that when it comes to European matters, the vineyard is a very dry one. I thank her for her generosity in accepting amendment (a) in my name and those of my colleagues from the European Scrutiny Committee. I know that I cannot withdraw an amendment that is on the Order Paper, but in the spirit of the way that we have been doing business since the Deputy Leader of the House and others became engaged in the process, I shall not press amendment (b).
	I want to thank several people. The Leader of the House obviously takes the matter seriously. As the shadow Leader of the House said, it has been on the agenda for at least three years. Indeed, before the Modernisation Committee produced its report, submissions were made from several quarters, including our Committee, that were not accepted and were perhaps too radical at the time. I hope that, in the distant future, someone will pick up on our suggestions to change the system substantially and move from the current Committee system, in line with the recommendations of the European Scrutiny Committee, which I did not chair at the time. I did, however, support the recommendations.
	The idea that our system is flawed and imperfect is not shared by other countries in the European Union. Only four countries have gone down the mandating road: Denmark, Finland, Sweden and now Slovenia, although it has still to perfect its system. In our understanding and experience, when something is made so rigid, the first thing that people do is to find a way round it. That is what happens in jurisdictions that have a mandating system. They encourage others to move in Council things that they have been mandated not to accept and then they blame other countries, including us—we have been caught out in that way—for moving against and gaining, by qualified majority voting, the proposal that their Government did not want them to vote for. That is one method of getting around the system—there are many others.
	We are regarded as probably the best non-mandating Parliament of the other 23 countries. We are so highly regarded that Macedonia, which wishes to join the European Union but has been criticised by the Commission, has asked the Clerk to our Committee to assist it to build a system of European scrutiny based on ours. When travelling, our Committee goes on a presidency visit and then to see an aspirant country. Macedonia has been soundly criticised for not having a parliamentary system that allows proper scrutiny across the board but hanging on to possibly ethnic groupings in debates in that country—which was at war internally, across its ethnic divide, not long ago. There are many good examples of our practices, and we look to improve them further.
	As I said, people who have helped us include the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House. I wish publicly and on the record to thank the shadow Leader of the House and her deputy, the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), who have engaged with the process seriously. I have read the pamphlet that the shadow Leader of the House produced. It contains some good items. It is like the curate's egg in that nothing is ever perfect, but I hope that we can discuss some of its good ideas outside the Chamber.
	I thank the usual channels. The Government and Opposition Chief Whips have worked diligently to try to find a way forward, with assistance from other Members who form part of the usual channels, and we have made progress.
	I thank the Chair of the Committee of Selection, who made serious representations to the Liaison Committee, which have helped us to deal with amendment (b), and the Chair and members of the Liaison Committee, who are, of course, the Chairs of the Select Committees. They have said that they are worried about the proposal because it is different from Standing Order No. 119, which provided for fixed membership. We argued that a fixed membership would have more experience as a result of permanently dealing with the business and having set agendas, which happened under Standing Order No. 119. However, the Chairs of the Select Committees are willing to take a chance and try out the proposal. It may impose on some of their members an extra commitment that they do not want.
	The proposal would effect something that we have believed should be done for at least nine years, which is the time that I have served on the European Scrutiny Committee: engage the Select Committees, which have subject and departmental responsibilities, in the European debate. That is important because ultimately the Departments will legislate. What comes from Europe does not get passed in Europe; that must happen here. The Select Committees must therefore engage with it more closely.
	I sometimes get the feeling that the only people who are supposed to get involved in European matters are members of the European Scrutiny Committee. However, that is not only our job, but that of every Select Committee. Some Chairs have been diligent; for example, the Deputy Leader of the House, who formerly chaired the Home Affairs Committee, regularly attended European debates. The Chair of the Treasury Committee and the Chair of the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, formerly the Trade and Industry Committee, engaged with European affairs. However, the membership needs to engage with the process too, and that could happen through the mechanism that we are considering.

Michael Connarty: That is a perceptive and lucidly expressed concern, and there are a number of things there. We know that the Whips and the business managers have a problem in getting hon. Members who can attend Committees named for them, but it would be useful if at least a week—or perhaps even a whole week and a few more days—could be given, for two reasons. The first is the very reason that the hon. Gentleman mentioned: so that Committee members can receive the papers at the same time, not when they walk into the Committee, and can work on them in their own time. I also believe that something should be done to make an executive summary.
	We will certainly be referring documents with the questions that we have raised in our reports that we wish to be taken up in those Committees, so that Committees do not have rambling discussions—this is the whole point of what, I hope, our amendments will achieve. Another point is that people outside this place—civic society organisations and businesses—want to know the membership at least a week in advance, so that they can send members briefings and ask them to ask questions on their behalf, thereby engaging people with Parliament's scrutiny process.
	Let me move on to the reasons for our amendment. Neither of the two reasons suggested is correct. In the past few days, when Europe has been to the fore, I have been accused of doing things for my own ego. However, my battered ego is not helped by the number of barbs I get when we are talking about Europe and some people would perhaps rather we were not, but I think it is a good thing that we are talking about Europe. Neither is the reason fear of bullying—I have been threatened by a number of people from this august organisation with dire consequences if I do not sit down and shut up more often, and stop raising Europe all the time. Those reasons might make other people move amendments, but they are certainly not my reasons.
	Our two reasons are these. First, this proposal must be tested for the rest of the Session, because it is not a fully fledged set of amendments to deal with everything recommended in the Modernisation Committee report. It has been negotiated in good faith by the Deputy Leader of the House and myself, by other colleagues in the Select Committees and in our own European Scrutiny Committee, and by Opposition Members. We need to check that it will work in good faith, and that we do not find that Members are being put on Select Committees that they do not wish to be on, or that Select Committee Chairs are getting upset by the process, or that my members are nominating people who are not being taken up, while others are being put on instead. If the process works in good faith, that will be a great thing.
	Secondly, we have mentioned January because we believe that, between October or November and January, there will be a need for other Standing Order amendments to be made, some of which have been discussed today. Others still lie in the Modernisation Committee report, including the recommendation that the European Scrutiny Committee have a role in initiating the subsidiarity process—the yellow and orange cards that have been mentioned in the main debates that we have been having on the treaty of Lisbon. Also, mention has already been made of the Standing Order amendment that is required to deal with the question of a general approach. We think that we are moving forward from a point where we are always in conflict with Ministers about this, and there are indications that the Cabinet Office is considering putting the matter in its scrutiny reserve resolution. Other Standing Order amendments would therefore be required, which I hope could be looked at between October or November—after looking at what has happened in the rest of the Session—and 1 January.
	I thank the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for not pressing her amendment on how we do our business in the European Scrutiny Committee. That matter will have to be looked at and resolved. It has been suggested that we should work in the full glare of publicity, but my worry is that the publicity can become the point of the meeting. It begins to be about getting publicity for a political position, rather than about the issues before us in the documents that we deal with. If we can square that circle, so that we can have a genuine debate rather than facing out to the latest member of the press to walk into the room—which we have seen a few times in our Committee when it has been in public session—we shall do a service to Parliament rather than a disservice to the whole process of scrutiny.

Michael Connarty: I had misunderstood the right hon. Lady. I thought that the negotiations had allowed us to reach a position in which we would not try to force this through today. I believe that this is something for which we can work out a methodology in future.
	On the general Standing Orders, I welcome the fact that we shall have focus, which we lacked in the interim when we had Sessional Orders, which collapsed the old Standing Order No. 119 Standing Committees but did not put anything of any substance in their place. We just had ad hoc meetings that were like those for statutory instruments, and they were rather pointless. There will now be focus through the European Scrutiny Committee membership—and, I hope, through the Select Committee membership—of that Committee.
	I also hope that there will be breadth of engagement by Members. I know that the aspiration of the Deputy Leader of the House is that people will indicate interests and preferences, and will then be put on to the appropriate Committee, bringing their interests and expertise to the discussions that take place. The aim is to have more accountability through Parliament and through us. Through our Committee, and through the structures under Standing Order No. 119, as amended, we want to give Parliament—on the Opposition side and on the Government side—the feeling that it can make Ministers accountable. We diminish ourselves when we are not seen to engage with scrutiny properly. The late Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook—who was a good friend of mine—said again and again that good scrutiny made for good legislation, and that poor scrutiny made for poor legislation. We, and the people we represent, want good legislation.

Simon Hughes: What lies behind the right hon. Gentleman's question is a difference of view on the treaty, which I understand. I do not treat the Foreign Affairs Committee or the European Scrutiny Committee with contempt in any way. I have looked at both the original proposals for the treaty and those before us now, and in my view there is a significant and substantial difference; I have formed my own judgment about that. The first set of proposals would have replaced all the European Union treaties with a new and much larger and more expansive document, whereas the second set would not. They are, therefore, different.
	It does not follow from that that there is a difference between the right hon. Gentleman and my party colleagues and I on the notion that the people of the United Kingdom should have a vote on these issues; the difference between us is simply that we believe the vote should be on the larger question, "Do you, the British people, want to be part of the EU on the terms proposed, or not?"

William Cash: On a specific point that I think is on target as it is to do with the scrutiny processes of this country, because of majority voting there is necessarily an interaction with other countries' voting arrangements, so it is also important for us to bear in mind what happens in those countries. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that many, if not most, of the 27 member states have a wholly inadequate scrutiny process in either their Committees or Parliament. Does he not therefore that there is a serious democratic gap in how this legislation is passed in Europe as a whole?

Kelvin Hopkins: I understand that point, and I raised it in an earlier intervention, but we have a strongly-whipped parliamentary system, and we cannot get round that too easily. I still believe that the scrutiny meetings and debates on the Floor of the House are important and have some influence. When I speak in a European Standing Committee—I spoke in one last Monday on rail freight, a particular interest of mine—I know that I am speaking to a Minister, who will hear my view. Departmental officials and staff of the House are also present, and hopefully they are all listening and taking note, and are somewhat influenced by what one says. There might even come a point when a Committee defeats a Government motion—the motions are mostly "that the Committee has noted" something. The defeat may then be reversed on the Floor of the House, but the point has been made. That puts pressure on the Government and Ministers, and will at least be a matter for future reference. Perhaps such a defeat will have some influence in the subject area concerned. That is the best that we can do.
	One of the points that I made in my submission to the Modernisation Committee was that our system may not be perfect, but it is the best that we have, although I do not describe it as a Panglossian "best of all possible worlds". We consider issues seriously, and our arrangements are better than those of some other nations. One of my concerns, which I am sure is shared by some Opposition Members, is that under qualified majority voting, things can be voted through because many European nations do not take scrutiny seriously. They rubber-stamp anything that comes from Brussels. Countries such as ours, which might take a more serious view, cannot obtain a blocking majority because so many countries simply rubber-stamp things, because we are all Europeans now.
	Not long ago, I said in a debate in the Chamber that many European Governments—by which I meant systems of government—are less trusted by their citizens than ours. Even with the relative decline in turnout in the UK, by and large people still think our system of government is important and they continue to trust it. We take our Government seriously, whereas in Italy, which has had a chaotic system of government since the second world war, many citizens do not take their Government too seriously; they may say, "Well our Government is useless but at least we've got the European Union and it might knock some sense into their heads". I do not know whether they think that, but it is possible. We tend to think the opposite—we do not want to be governed by Brussels because we can perfectly well govern ourselves. Because we take such things seriously, we should at least preserve our existing scrutiny system and try to improve it, which we are discussing this afternoon.
	Permanent membership of Committees is important. Our Whips, or those who appoint Committees, should explore with Members what their interests are and whether they are prepared to take their Committee membership seriously, as with Select Committees. In our party, we apply for membership of Select Committees and are, in effect, appointed by our Whips because we have at least an interest in the subject. If we took that approach with European Committees and their status was raised, even though attendance might still be whipped, there would be proper participation and proper questioning of Ministers. Members would at least have looked at the documents and could ask questions or make a speech on the important things.
	I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that we should have more debates on the Floor of the House, not just in Westminster Hall and not just general debates. There are two things that should always be debated on the Floor of the House, and with a good time allowed: the European budget and the report of the Court of Auditors. They are serious documents about whether our money is being spent appropriately and not corruptly.
	Will my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House give serious consideration to the possibility of instituting permanent membership of the European Committees? That would be difficult if there were too many Committees, as I pointed out in an earlier submission, because we would have to find more members for them. When I was first an MP, there were two European Standing Committees and then there were three, which is enough. There should be three European Committees with permanent members who take the job seriously and make sure that we perform scrutiny as we should.
	Although I have been a member of the European Scrutiny Committee only a few months, I think that it works well, which is partly to do with the splendid way it is chaired. Its members take the Committee seriously and they do a good job, for which I commend them. I enjoy being a member of the Committee because it is taken seriously, but I do not care to be intimidated by fellow Members into not speaking in Committee because it will delay proceedings and they want to go home. In the past, even one of our Whips has occasionally said, "You're not going to speak, are you?" That is inappropriate if we are to take our job seriously, and my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader should have a word with our Whips to make sure that it does not happen in future.
	I hope that my hon. Friend will take note of the points I have made and ensure that scrutiny works well in future both on the Floor of the House and in the Committees.

William Cash: The debate has been very useful and I am extremely glad that we have achieved so much agreement. I am also glad to learn that the measure, although important, is an interim one, because we shall need to tackle other matters, as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins)—a co-member of the Committee—suggested.
	I want to make a number of points to set the background for our debate. One of them arises from the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House regarding the Committee's decision about whether it should sit in public. This is not in any sense a criticism, but an important addendum to the amendment. It relates to the manner in which the chairmanship of the Committee is decided.
	The proposal from the shadow Leader of the House is that the Committee shall sit in public unless it determines otherwise. The Committee's decision about whether to sit in public would inevitably determined by the agenda, which would be prepared by the Chairman. The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee knows well enough that there are occasions when I do not agree with his decisions, although of course I abide by them, because we try to work as well as possible. Nevertheless, there are occasions when I vote against his proposals in Committee and they are registered in the formal minutes.
	We should bear it in mind that there are many Select Committees but only two scrutiny Committees in the House of Commons: the Public Accounts Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee. Although the Public Accounts Committee undoubtedly has a much higher profile, I pay tribute publicly and openly to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) for what he has achieved in the past months since becoming Chairman. In relation to a vast amount of European legislation—for example, in connection with the latest treaty—the issues that crop up get into some extremely sensitive areas in matters of concern to the Government.
	The Public Accounts Committee, by convention, always has as its Chairman a member of the Opposition. Even with my 23 years on the Committee—I would be extremely surprised if any other Member of the House had been on any Select Committee continuously for 23 years—I have never expressed any wish or desire to be Chairman of the Committee, but I think the chairmanship should be in the hands of the Opposition party. I would be grateful if the shadow Leader of the House took account of this point, which is a matter of extreme importance on occasions.

Michael Connarty: If the hon. Gentleman reads some of my remarks earlier in my own speech, he will see why our Whips think the Committee is indeed chaired by a member of the Opposition.

William Cash: On the whole, people outside the House, particularly media commentators, pay absolutely no attention to what goes on in the European Scrutiny Committee, although I have noticed that some of the sketch writers come in occasionally. Generally speaking, European scrutiny is regarded as a subject to be accompanied by an enormous yawn and seen as about the most boring thing on earth. However, the bottom line is that the scrutiny of European legislation is at the heart of what goes on in the House.
	Earlier, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that the German Parliament had calculated that 60 per cent. of its legislation initiates in Brussels; in fact, former President Herzog put the figure at 85 per cent. I do not believe that such people are trying to mislead or exaggerate, any more than we are when we make our own estimates. The fact is that the whole of the legislative process has, in a sense, been inverted. Without going the whole way down that route, I simply make the point that that is why the focus on the European scrutiny process is so critical.
	As the hon. Member for Luton, North pointed out, and as I did in an intervention on the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), if that scrutiny is not done properly in the other member states—if things are done in a way that is inconsistent with our vital national interests—and we are governed by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers, the consequences could be dire for this country. I want to put that general proposition on the record.
	Just before Christmas, another point arose in the context of a failure to comply with the resolution of November 1998. In a motion that I proposed in the European Scrutiny Committee—I am not disclosing any confidences, as this is well known—I proposed that the Prime Minister should be required to comply with the scrutiny reserve Standing Orders and that resolution with respect to the signing of the treaty.
	As regards the document that we had considered, it was in the spirit of Standing Orders—the key thing in relation to the manner in which the procedures of this House operate—that for the words "IGC opinion", one could read, "reform treaty". We said that there should be a debate on the Floor of the House and that that should be done before the Prime Minister signed the treaty on 13 December. That was not done, and the bottom line is that there was a bit of buckling all round. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and I, with about 12 of our hon. Friends, went through the Lobby to support our opposition to the position that the Government had adopted. I think that there was a misunderstanding in some quarters as to the importance of all this, as I said when I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I believe that our party should have put its foot down very strongly on that occasion. It caused a few ruffles, but let us not worry about that, because these things happen in the political arena.
	I was delighted to notice that the next morning an excellent pamphlet written by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House was published in which she laid down the requirement that if circumstances arose in which the Government did not comply with the scrutiny reserve, the most dire sanctions should be visited upon them. I will not go into the detail because I do not have the pamphlet with me. For practical purposes, she was completely right. We all learn from these experiences, and the shadow Leader of the House has done us a service by publishing that pamphlet, although I have no doubt that there are other matters which we could discuss further and which could be added to it.
	Another question is that of representations to the European Scrutiny Committee by bodies such as the CBI, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors. I mentioned that when I spoke on Second Reading of the Single European Act in 1986 and I wrote an article in  The Times about it in the same year. I said, in the light of my experience in advising on the impact of legislation for 20 years before I came to the House, that in relation to scrutiny it is essential that trade associations that are concerned to get matters right for their membership—it applies to the trade unions as well—should make their views known in advance to the Committee. Our scrutiny reserve process provides a breathing space by putting on hold any decision by a Minister in the Council of Ministers, and in that intervening period, after we have given it due consideration, a change of mind could take place. That makes any overriding by a Government Department of a decision that is taken by the Committee, where it is done wilfully, a grievous breach of Standing Orders and of the resolution of 1998.
	I put the matter of the Lisbon treaty and the Prime Minister into that category. I urge people in trade associations, professional organisations and trade unions to volunteer information to the Committee so that our advisers have the best possible advice available on what is going on in the world outside. With the best will in the world, they can form a judgment as expert advisers, but they need as well-informed a judgment as possible. What would be better, in relation to questions affecting industry, commerce or whatever, than all the people who wanted to make representations being able to use the Committee as a means to ensure that any debate that is held is held on the right basis?

Shailesh Vara: My thanks go to my hon. Friend for that advice. Given that he has given 23 years' service to the Committee, I will certainly do as he instructs and give further thought to the matter. However, one of the amendments would give the Committee the option to sit in private if necessary. That covers the question of striking the right balance between private and public.
	I shall move on to, as it happens, the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), which was typically learned. He was right to point out that European scrutiny in the House is at the heart of all that we do. We are right to give it the attention that we do.
	This is a vital subject that recurs constantly in public debate and in the House. We, as servants of the people who have elected us, do them a great disservice if we do not give the subject the attention that it deserves. If the public out there are to be obligated by Brussels to at least 60 per cent. of the legislation of this country, they have a right to expect us to give proper scrutiny to all that comes from Brussels.

Helen Goodman: I was about to embark on a paean of praise. Obviously I got ahead of myself. My hon. Friend does an excellent job, as does the whole European Scrutiny Committee—in an extremely thorough way, and on extremely difficult territory—and we are all very grateful to him. As I said earlier, we are prepared to accept his amendment (a) to ensure that our proposals are reviewed again at the end of the year.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey made a typically thoughtful speech. I hope he accepts that some of the seeds that he planted have flowered. He asked why the Government had not considered in more detail the possibility of a Joint Committee with the House of Lords. Obviously we have thought about that, and obviously the system in the House of Lords is very well respected, but the truth is that the Lords and Commons systems complement each other extremely well. Although Members of the House of Commons are often criticised for their inadequacies in relation to European matters, the Government believe that if we organise the work properly, that unfavourable comparison will be seen to be totally unfair.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke from long experience as a member of a European Standing Committee as well as the European Scrutiny Committee. I hope that what I have said about the composition of the Committees will deal with his concerns.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) spoke from his deep interest in this matter. He suggested that the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee should be a Member of Her Majesty's Opposition. We can rule that out absolutely at present because the Committee is in the safe hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. The hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire also gave a principled exposition of his views.
	We have had a thorough debate. I hope that we can come to an agreement and that the motion will be supported. I commend it to the House.
	 Amendment made: (a), in line 1, leave out
	'for the remainder of the current Parliament'
	and insert
	'until 1st January 2009'. — [Michael Connarty.]
	 Amendment made: (e), in line 63, at end add—
	"(9A) The Committee, and every such sub-committee, shall sit in public unless it determines otherwise in relation to a particular meeting or part thereof.".'.— [Mrs. May.]
	 Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Jessica Morden: I wish to present a petition on behalf of many residents and constituents in Newport who are concerned about the proposed closure of Christchurch Road post office. It is a busy and profitable branch, which plays a vital role in the local community and its closure would be contrary to the aims of the Post Office Ltd network change programme as there is no easy access to nearby services on foot and no public transport links to nearby branches, and businesses who use the service because it is accessible will, as there is no alternative, take their custom to banks. The large turnout for a public meeting held last week demonstrates the strength of local public feeling about the closure. The petitioners therefore request that this House urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to save this vital post office.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [ The Petition of the sub-postmaster and supporters of Christchurch Road Post Office in Newport,
	 Declares that Christchurch Road Post Office continues to play a vital role in the local community by providing essential and convenient services; that to shut a profitable and busy Post Office is contrary to the proposed goal of the Post Office Ltd's network change programme; that the route to the alternative Post Office means walking down a very steep hill; which would have a detrimental effect on customers who are elderly or disabled who would be unable to access other Post Office services.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to save this vital Post Office.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000117]

Madeleine Moon: I thank the Speaker's Office for generously finding time for this debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales , my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), is answering this debate. His constituency is to the north of mine, and together they make up the county borough of Bridgend. Sadly, the national media often confuse the county borough, the town and my parliamentary constituency of Bridgend, joining them into a single metropolis "death town" of many problems. Throughout this debate I shall use "Bridgend" to denote the county borough, which covers both constituencies.
	If ever a debate had cross-departmental consequences, it is this one on the nature of suicide. Some responsibilities and questions lie with the Wales Office, but others lie with the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Children Schools and Families and the Home Office. I should therefore like to take the opportunity to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who has responsibility for mental health, the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who has responsibility for criminal justice, all of whom have agreed to meet me to discuss this issue.
	I want to start by putting into perspective the numbers committing suicide. The UK's suicide rate pales in comparison with those of Canada, Australia and Ireland, whose figures are more than double the UK figure. Many European countries have much higher figures than the UK. Bridgend has featured heavily in the local, national and international media as the suicide town, as the home of a suicide cult and as death town. As I hope to show, the suicide problem lies not in the high number of deaths in Bridgend but in the high number of deaths in Wales. I therefore welcome the presence of my Welsh colleagues in this debate.
	Four years ago, I began noticing a cluster of suicides of young males. It reached a peak in 2006 when 17 young people in the Bridgend constituency and four in Ogmore took their own lives—that makes a total of 21 in Bridgend. As the press has highlighted many times in recent weeks, a similar number of suicides occurred last year.
	I knew some of the young men who died. I had talked to one days before his death about an apprenticeship that he was taking up. I had met others through our excellent Youth Enterprise, Lifelong Learning, Opportunities for Work—YELLOW—project. It was set up by Hafod housing to work with homeless young people, many of whom had drug and alcohol problems, all of whom had chaotic lives that YELLOW helped to stabilise and then move forward into being successful lives. Some people claim that there is nothing one can do to prevent suicide, as one cannot see it coming, but they are wrong—much can be done, and it needs doing urgently in Wales.
	Bridgend county borough moved from being the 113th worst local authority area on this issue in the period 1991 to 1997 to the 48th worst in the period 1998 to 2004. Yet these deaths kept coming—on average, two a month locally, but across Wales a shocking 21 a month occurred in 2006. The Bridgend coroner, Philip Walters, has said he believes that there are possibly more, as there have also been 40 deaths in Bridgend with open verdicts since 2006.
	People ask me why, and what is going wrong locally. They want to pin the problem down to one cause. The media have asked whether the cause is the internet, Bebo, Facebook or other networking sites. The answer is yes and no. I believe there is a risk from spending too much time in the alternative reality of computer games and chat rooms. There are risks to young people who give out intimate personal details in cyberspace thinking that they are safe. I also believe that for a vulnerable person who is contemplating suicide, the isolation of communication through words on a screen does not provide the warmth, humanity, compassion and empathy of talking to another person.
	I know that for some people e-mail can allow emotions to be articulated and shared in a way they would find difficult in person. The Samaritans have successfully operated an e-mail communication link that allows young men, in particular, to do that. I urge anyone who is unable to talk but who wants to use e-mail to communicate emotional distress to e-mail Samaritans or PAPYRUS, not a chat room. I have arranged to meet a representative from Bebo to discuss how the site can help to reach out to vulnerable young people, and was encouraged to hear that it is already working closely with the Samaritans. Bebo representatives recently gave a presentation at the suicide prevention convention in Killarney.
	American research has found that young people who commit suicide are more likely than their peers to have had a friend who died through suicide. That certainly rings true in the cases in my constituency. Mind has stated that the aftermath of a suicide appears to be a dangerous time for those in close proximity, as they identify with the victim and are already vulnerable. The emotional furore that follows death may loosen internal restraints against self-destruction. That is why I have been so angry about the press coverage. It is why it is absolutely vital that the press should follow the Samaritans' guidelines if they are not to add to the problem. It is why emotional literacy and life skills are important to help young people survive.
	When faced with real death and the intensity of emotional pain, many young people have no experience of how to deal with that pain. Their peers lack the life experiences and words to help and the knowledge of where to go for guidance. That is backed up by figures from ChildLine, which show that girls are 11 times more likely to call about self-harm than boys and account for four out of every five calls that mention suicides. Boys and young men are likely to be nearer the end of their tether; they do not typically ask for help until they are desperate.
	It is important that the gender stereotypes—wherever they occur—that reinforce the idea that men should be self-reliant and able to cope are challenged at every level. That is why the Samaritans' campaigns are so important. They direct people to help and support that is readily accessible and that allows young people to have support on their own terms and in their own territory, which is critical.

Madeleine Moon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am well aware of the work that she does with the Samaritans in Cardiff and the support that she gives the organisation. I am aware of the scheme, which also operates in Parc prison in Bridgend, and of how critical it is. It is also important for those prisoners who take part in the scheme, as they learn how to listen, talk and recognise their emotions. They tell me about the change that that has made to their lives, and the future that opens up for them when they learn to articulate and deal with strong emotion.
	The suicide in Avon study found that 80 per cent. of young male suicides had no contact with their GP, psychiatrist or other support agency in the four weeks before they died. In fact, they were five times more likely to have had contact with the police than with any other agency. People ask me whether the problem is one of drugs and alcohol. The answer is that it is for some young people, but not for others.
	Bridgend, like too many constituencies, has young people who turn to drugs and alcohol. Sometimes they do it to seek respite from depression, emotional confusion and a sense of failure and despair. I spent part of last summer's recess with the local mental health services, especially with those dealing with drugs and alcohol, and I am certain that those services need to be expanded. Waiting lists for help and advice are too long, and the range of services that is needed is simply not available.
	My hon. Friend the Minister will remember coming with me last year to meet staff at Bridgend's Wallich mental health facility. They made a plea for help to establish a wet hostel, where those who are not yet ready to give up alcohol and drugs could live and be supported and stabilised. In that way, they would be able to give up their dependency.
	I have also had contact with people living in communities across the world where there have been suicide clusters. They have given me advice about how they have tacked the problem, and I especially thank Dr. Cassidy from Northern Ireland for the details of the strategy employed there. I have passed that information on to agencies in my locality.
	Last week, I talked to the mother of a 19-year-old young man who took his life. He left school at 16 and found an unskilled job. He was struggling to enter the adult world of responsibilities and problem solving, but had a flat and a job. Then he lost his job and, lacking skills and qualifications, he struggled to find another one. Debts mounted up: at 19 years of age, he did not qualify for full housing benefit, and he could not find the support and help that he needed. He turned to drugs and alcohol to hide from his sense of failure and despair. He was known to the police, and his life spiralled downwards. It grew more chaotic, and so it became even more impossible for him to find a job.
	That young man attempted suicide but could get no further help. Shortly afterwards, he killed himself. Like too many others, his family is now struggling with the aftermath of his death. His mother has given up her job and is having counselling, and his siblings are greatly distressed. This young man's mother has complained of the lack of support services for families who are bereaved and devastated by suicide. We all tend to forget them as a group, but the degree of devastation that they experience is immense.
	The young man about whom I have spoken is not typical of all those who have died. The mental health services knew about him, but he did not know about the Samaritans. I commend the local Samaritans for the prompt action that they took. They have a campaign with a proven track record that is being rolled out across Bridgend.
	I also want to thank Andrew Goodall of the local health board. When we met last Friday, he agreed to find the money to fund the campaign. Ironically, we met at the Bridgend recreation centre's excellent exhibition of health and well-being—an example of good partnership working involving the local health board, the primary care trust, the local authority and the voluntary sector. A similar partnership has worked for the past year to develop a local suicide strategy, and I am advised that that will be launched in the next few weeks. I commend that local initiative but, while work on a local strategy has been undertaken and research has been gathered about similar problems in Scotland, 22 young people have died.
	Wales had a target of cutting suicides by 15 per cent. by 2000, but in 2002 that target was cut to 10 per cent. Neither target was met—in fact, the suicide rate in Wales increased. For many years, groups such as Papyrus have been asking the Welsh Assembly to consider formulating a national suicide prevention strategy. Given that Wales has a significantly higher suicide rate than England, it is striking and shocking that Wales has not yet done so. Since England introduced the suicide prevention strategy in 2002, suicide has dropped dramatically across all age groups, and the upward trend in suicides among young males has been reversed. The overall suicide rate there is now the lowest on record. Wales is many years behind not just England but Scotland, Northern Ireland and many other countries.
	At the international suicide prevention conference in Killarney, people from all over the world met to share their prevention work and, most importantly, their expertise. I am told that there was no representation from Wales. Representatives from Scotland, England and Northern Ireland meet regularly to discuss implementation of their respective strategies. Wales is missing out on an opportunity to share good practice and, vitally, to learn from others.
	Money is key to a successful strategy. Scotland invested £20 million in its 2002 Choose Life strategy. Bridgend is relying on lottery funding that may be available in 2009 for its locally written strategy. I am sure that other hon. Members will find it unacceptable that young people may die while waiting for charity funds to be made available.
	I have repeatedly been asked whether deprivation is the problem. If one reads the national press, Bridgend is a ghost town, and suicide is just what people do there because there is nothing else to do, but we have good schools, low unemployment, active churches, an active voluntary sector and social cohesion. Community identity remains strong. It is a good place to live and bring up a family. Like many parts of the UK, it does have some young people who are marginalised. Some have troubled family lives, some do not do well in school, some have mental health problems and some use drugs and alcohol. All of them have a common feeling of despair and failure, and can see no future ahead of them—no future for which to live and work.

Huw Irranca-Davies: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) on securing the debate on such an important and timely issue as suicide prevention strategies. I thank her for the calm, measured and well informed way in which she introduced the debate, and for her work, not just recently but over a sustained period with others to bring an end to this tragic string of events.
	The issue is of great concern to Members of Parliament, Assembly Members and elected representatives, all of whom will want to find a way forward for the families and communities affected. Our thoughts and sympathies go out to the families and friends who have been affected by these tragedies. As a father myself, I struggle to imagine the devastation caused by those young deaths. It is a time for sombre reflection, and for considered and effective action.
	The consequences in emotional and practical terms are felt by many of us, from close family members and friends, to colleagues, the many statutory and voluntary agencies involved in the provisions of health and social care, and the wider community. We would all want, I am sure, to pay tribute to those who are actively working with young people and supporting them in making sense of these tragic events.
	Over the past few weeks, as my hon. Friend said, because of a number of family tragedies, the national media spotlight has been focused on Bridgend and Ogmore, the parliamentary constituencies that she and I represent. The reasons the Bridgend area is under intense focus are clear. We acknowledge that over the past 10 years rates of suicide among those aged 16 to 29 have been higher than elsewhere in Wales. The recent deaths of young women, an untypical pattern, and speculation over links through internet or other means have given Bridgend understandable prominence.
	As my hon. Friend said, it is important that we put those events in context. The Bridgend population overall has suicide rates approximating the Welsh average. There are other areas in Wales and the UK that have similar or higher rates, or where clusters can be identified. The UK as a whole has one of the lowest suicide rates in Europe and the rest of the world. That context is vital.
	My hon. Friend referred to the role of the media. Research shows that media reporting can have a significant impact and influence on young people's response to suicides. Therefore, I strongly urge measured and considered reporting of all such events and of the debate today, with consideration for the impact that that may have on the bereaved families and the wider community.
	There has been much speculation about internet suicide rooms and cults. We all share the public's concern about websites that may have an undue influence over vulnerable people, particularly the young, but caution is needed. No one should jump to conclusions about the connection between internet sites and the deaths in Bridgend or elsewhere. Work is ongoing in relation to the internet and forms one strand of the Byron review, an independent review commissioned by the Prime Minister. The Ministry of Justice is also due to publish safer network guidance, and I am aware of the work of the Samaritans and other agencies, which have been mentioned by hon. Members, and their contribution to that work.